↓ Skip to main content

Hemodialysis patients’ preferences for the management of anemia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hemodialysis patients’ preferences for the management of anemia
Published in
BMC Nephrology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12882-017-0664-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett Hauber, John Caloyeras, Joshua Posner, Deborah Brommage, Spiros Tzivelekis, Allan Pollock

Abstract

Patient engagement in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is expected to result in a more patient-centered approach to care that aligns with patients' values, preferences, and goals for treatment. Nevertheless, no previous studies of which we are aware have evaluated patients' benefit-risk preferences for the management of anemia associated with ESRD. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the tradeoffs patients are willing to make between cardiovascular risks associated with some anemia medicines and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. A secondary objective was to quantify the importance of avoiding transfusion-related risks. A survey instrument was developed from the clinical literature, clinician input, patient-education resources, and a patient focus group. The survey instrument was qualitatively pretested before its administration to a broader sample of patients. The National Kidney Foundation invited individuals in the United States to participate in the survey. In a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), respondents chose between two hypothetical anemia medications in a series of questions. Each medication was defined by symptom relief, frequency of transfusions, cardiovascular risk, mode of administration, and out-of-pocket cost. The survey also included a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise to quantify the importance of avoiding attributes of blood transfusions. Results from the DCE were used to estimate relative importance and marginal willingness to pay. Results from the BWS were converted to relative importance weights. A total of 200 individuals completed the survey. Patients were willing to accept a 6% medication-related risk of heart attack to avoid having two RBC transfusions per month. Symptom relief and mode of administration were of moderate importance. The most important transfusion-related risk to avoid was transfusion-related lung injury. Patients with ESRD and anemia have measurable treatment preferences and are willing to accept risks associated with anemia medications to avoid transfusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 27 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 29 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,566,023
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,018
of 2,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,046
of 318,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#24
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.